Where to park?

Don't even get me started on the signage within California state. Which will be a post at some point.

The image below demonstrates how assumed and accurate signage ideologies merge, and can easily confuse people without constant exposure to the norm. My perspective stems from: "What if a foreigner arrives and there are no examples given to follow?"


The image above shows "normal" vehicle parking positions, as the signage is marked in San Diego, California. But that is simply my point. The parking signage shows bounds that do not completely apply. Look at the direction of bounded enclosure space for the vehicles. If you followed the bounded enclosure, you would think that San Diego allows for double vehicle parking, as shown below.


Pretty cool, no? Not unless you want to get a parking ticket.

The appropriate boundaries should be marked as follows.


Simple, straightforward and not confusing.

Case closed. Well at least until the next California signage posting.

What time is it?

Is it midnight or noon?

That is often the question that arises from people dealing in time zones outside of the USA that use 24 hours to signify a day's hours (instead of the USA using two 12 hour segments in a day), when someone says at "12 o'clock".

Confusion. It seems that much of this world creates confusion from lack of consistency. Different measurement systems of all sorts (time, weight, liquid, year, etc.) allow for understanding that interface with less depth and thus results in barriers to knowledge.

How many hours are in a day? That's obvious. 24. Ask a child that in the USA while they are learning about time, and the answer may surprise you. It seems you have to unlearn what you know due to divergent systems.

Many thanks to Pete Boardman's www.24hourtime.info site for exemplifying the use of 24 hour measurement clocks.

So why deal with confusion of a 12 clock? Is it because people have a hard time counting past 12? I think not. Well, one answer is because we have to. Or do we? We can adopt whatever time counting system we want.

Why do you think the military uses a 24 hour system?

Don't even get me started on Daylight Savings Time.

Give me 24 hours in a day, the reality, instead of splitting the day into 2 parts of 12 which makes one feel like there is less time in the day. I'd rather keep with the natural rhythms of the solar system.

Making Sense of the Reverse

Something that IMDb has been doing has bothered me for a long time (since I've been browsing it since around 1995).

It's not even their fault. And once the examples are shown, maybe you'll be as surprised as I am that this hasn't been resolved or even figured out yet.

In fact, it's the governing body of HyperText Markup Language (HTML) itself that is has been to blame.

Let me guide you through the thought-process. We will need an example, and this is where we begin the discussion.

IMdb's most prolific actor list says Richard Whiteley has done the most acting to date. I've never heard of him, which does not make him any less notable, so the focus will shift to someone more timely. While Mel Blanc is well-known, you usually do not see him in a feature presentation as he almost exclusively did voices of familiar cartoon characters. I'll stick to one of my favorite screen actors, Morgan Freeman, for this example.

If you scroll to the Filmography section where Mr. Freeman is listed as an Actor, the first 5 films are (as of 2008-07-06):

1. The Last Full Measure (2009)
2. Rendezvous with Rama (2009)
3. The Human Factor (2009)
3. The Lonely Maiden (2009)
5. The Code (2008)

This beginning, interestingly enough, initially looks like the first film he worked on is "The Last Full Measure (2009)" since it is numbered "1", but in fact is the last. Scrolling all the way down his acting career you will eventually find out that he has acted in 87 films.

My issue with the presentation of this information is: Why should I have to scroll down to find out how many films in total? Furthermore, why is the timeline opposite to that of the list?

A better representation of the list would begin at the top with:

87. The Last Full Measure (2009)
86. Rendezvous with Rama (2009)
85. The Human Factor (2009)
84. The Lonely Maiden (2009)
83. The Code (2008)

and end with:

5. Blade (1973)
4. Who Says I Can't Ride a Rainbow! (1971)
3. Where Were You When the Lights Went Out? (1968)
2. A Man Called Adam (1966)
1. The Pawnbroker (1964)

Thus, the first movie that Mr. Freeman acted in was "The Pawnbroker (1964)", and the most recent would be "The Last Full Measure (2009)". With the organization in this manner, you can tell instantaneously that he has acted in 87 films. Also, chronologically both counts (film and year) are progressing in tandem.

Any information that can be presented, should be presented without having to think about it.

What is obvious to some, may become obvious to others with understanding. That is simply good design. Good design takes a keen eye and mind to make the obvious simple.

Thankfully, the W3 is proposing to incorporate reverse lists in HTML 5.0. I hope IMDb takes this new code on to reverse the confusion.

Watch what you ingest

A bit of a Byte?

This was going to be my first post. However, Blogger's date format had to be addressed while it came up and could not be resisted.

Here's a little test.

Do you know the difference between the usage of these measurements?

1. kB
2. Kb
3. kb
4. KB

It is a bit (pun intended) of a trick question.

There are sloppy use of these measurements all over the Internet, printed publications, etc. and not just by those who should be "in the know". Many of those people being in the Information Technology (IT) industry.

If we as a species are to become living in a digitally exposed environment, we all need to know some basics of digital measurement.

Getting back to the trick question. They are just letters, right? True. However, when used in the context of measurement, they take on a whole new meaning. The "k" or "K" prefix, refers to, as many already know, for "kilo" or one thousand (1 000). For more detail see binary prefix.

Accordingly, there is no difference between the upper case "K" and the lower case "k". My argument starts with that there is. The correct nomenclature of the standard is somewhat inconsistent. If you take a few moments, there is a pattern that emerges, although inconsistently. All of the fractions are lower case. Most of the whole numbers are upper case. This is the start of my proposal to only use upper case for the whole numbers, also since technically you can not have any thing smaller than zero for computing measurement. There's just nothing smaller than zero on a computer. For example, you cannot have a "mb" (milli-bit), but you can have a "Mb" (Mega-bit). Again, "PB" (Peta-Byte) exist, and "pB" (pico-Byte) do not. Look out for zepto/Zetta and yocto/Yotta, too. When the need arises to go beyond 10 to the 24th power (10^24), more lower case/Upper Case combinations will likely emerge.

Is there a difference between "k" and "K"? No. But there should be. And with that at hand, I propose only to use "K". From hereon, that's what I will do.

Now we move onto "b" and "B". Here there is a big span. Bits are either on or off, 1 (one) or 0 (zero) to a computer. Bytes are 8 (eight) bits. And to differentiate, a bit is always a lower case "b" and a byte is always upper case "B" when represented in a single letter.

Generally:
bit = used for the measurement of data communication / transmission
byte = used for the measurement of data storage

Hard drives, floppy disks (for those that remember them), USB drives, CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, even MP3 players are all storage mediums are represented in Bytes: 500MB hard drive, 1.44MB disk drive, 1GB USB drive, 640MB CD-ROM, 4.7GB DVD-ROM, and so on.

Networks are represented with bits. Your DSL, cable modem connection, office network, modem (remember those long-past days of waiting), cell phone networks, etc. are all shown in bits per second (or bps or b/s): as in 56Kbs, 1.5Mb/s, 100Mbs, etal.

What did you guess in the quiz? Did the "k" or "K" matter? Was the "b" it a bit or a byte?

The answers are:

1. kB = should be avoided
   
2. Kb = Kilo-bit
3. kb = also should be avoided
4. KB = Kilo-Byte
   

Curious how one element can make something big into something small.

Consistency and the Order of Time

Perfectly brilliant. In the creation process of this blog, there are already shown reasons of why this blog was to be born.

It all begins with consistency.

Case in point...

Here are the choices for formatting dates of the "Date Header Format":

Notice first of all that all of the selections are a bit scattered. By this I mean that there is a lack of order.

Second, get rid of the duplicate entries: "Saturday, June 14, 2008" (third and fifth items from top) and "June 14, 2008" (second and fourteenth items from top). Leaving 14 of 16 original items.

Third criticism is to avoid non-referential dating formats. Those being the plain "Saturday" and "Saturday, June 14". For the latter, how many times have you looked for an article on the Internet to find the date "Monday," or "November 11," or "Thursday March 3"? What year is that article supposed to be? As for just placing the day, as in "Wednesday"...day number? month? year? Leaving 12 of 16 original items. So, with that, these will be omitted from the following re-ordering of the list selection of date formats.

After elimination of the duplicates and non-referential dates, the original list results in 12 items:
Jun 14, 2008
June 14, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
6/14/08
6/14/2008
6.14.2008
20080614
2008/06/14
2008-06-14
14.6.08
14 June 2008
14 June, 2008

Now on to the beginning of making orderly sense of selecting an item from the list of different date formats.

One means of creating order would be from short (top) to long (bottom):
6/14/08
14.6.08
6/14/2008
6.14.2008
20080614
2008/06/14
2008-06-14
Jun 14, 2008
June 14, 2008
14 June 2008
14 June, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008

Another would be from a common usage order, which is partially followed by the example shown. Here is my interpretation from common (within the United States of America) to more unconventional (more international):
Jun 14, 2008
June 14, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
6/14/08
6/14/2008
6.14.2008
20080614
2008/06/14
2008-06-14
14.6.08
14 June 2008
14 June, 2008

Notice that the above list is what Blogger represents the closest, with slight exception on 1st item.

But, then some people may become confused by date formatting uncommon to them, as presented above. So, here is an attempt at keeping all the different dating formats together:
Jun 14, 2008
June 14, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
6/14/08
6/14/2008
6.14.2008
20080614
2008/06/14
2008-06-14
14.6.08
14 June 2008
14 June, 2008

Another useful element to add is a separator in the pull-down menu making an quicker selection, along with descriptions of groupings in [square brackets]:
Jun 14, 2008 [month day year with words]
June 14, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
— [Disputable whether this would be included or not. For the example of clarity, included.]
6/14/08 [month day year with only numbers]
6/14/2008
6.14.2008
—
20080614 [year month day]
2008/06/14
2008-06-14
—
14.6.08 [day month year]
14 June 2008
14 June, 2008

Well, to make matters even more confusing Blogger has this more extensive list for its "Comments Timestamp Format":

Saturday, June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM PDT
June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM PDT
June 14, 2008 6:10 PM
June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM
6:10:37 PM
6:10 PM
6/14/08 6:10 PM
6/14/2008 6:10 PM
6/14/2008 6:10:37 PM
6/14/2008
6:10 PM
6:10 PM PDT
6:10 PM, June 14, 2008
6:10:37 PM
18:10
June 14, 2008
June 14, 2008 6:10 PM
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM
Sat Jun 14, 06:10:37 PM PDT
Sat Jun 14, 06:10:37 PM
Sat Jun 14, 06:10:37 PM 2008
14.06.08
14/6/08
14/6/08 18:10
14/6/08 6:10 PM
Saturday, 14 June, 2008
14 June, 2008 18:10
14 June, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008

Again, there are duplicates, reducing the original count of 30 down to 26:
Saturday, June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM PDT
June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM PDT
June 14, 2008 6:10 PM
June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM
6:10:37 PM
6:10 PM
6/14/08 6:10 PM
6/14/2008 6:10 PM
6/14/2008 6:10:37 PM
6/14/2008
6:10 PM PDT
6:10 PM, June 14, 2008
18:10
June 14, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM
Sat Jun 14, 06:10:37 PM PDT
Sat Jun 14, 06:10:37 PM
Sat Jun 14, 06:10:37 PM 2008
14.06.08
14/6/08
14/6/08 18:10
14/6/08 6:10 PM
Saturday, 14 June, 2008
14 June, 2008 18:10
14 June, 2008

Thing is with duplicates. It is generally termed as messy or sloppy programming, it also slows the server down since it has to process more information and then send it out over the Internet to your browser.

A note about servers: the more it has to process, the longer it will take for the next batch of information processed. When this is, say, a million (1,000,000) times repeated even 1 millisecond (.001 second) results (1,000,000 * .001) in 1,000 seconds (or 16.66 minutes). Thus, saving processing time is invaluable.

What tends to be disturbing is that there are items on both lists ("Date Header Format" and "Comments Timestamp Format") that are not contained in the other. Consistency.

Before lengthening this blog post, a mention of why I prefer this date format:
2008-06-14 18:10
2008-06-14 Saturday 18:10
2008-06-14 18:10:37
2008-06-14 Saturday 18:10:37
It just makes sense, pure and simple. Begin (from left-to-right) with the item that encapsulates all the other details. You can describe seconds in a year (seconds * minutes * hours * days * months), but not years in a second unless you want to describe a really long fraction that probably only mathematicians will appreciate. Another way to describe the order: year has months and in turn days within hours encompassing minutes and finally seconds. Here's the numerical format description:
year-month-day (day) hour:minute:second

Another benefit to this particular formatting, is that it can be easily sorted (by a computer). It is also consistent by always using 2 numerical digits for the month and hour. The other thing that most people from the U.S.A. will complain about is the use of 24 hours in the hour. Really, what time is it when you say, "It's 9"? Is it 9am, or 9pm? Or without explanation: It is 21:00. You can tell the day is near end since it is approaching 24:00/00:00, as in 24 hours in a day.

Personally, most of the other formats are just confusing.

Finally, combining the "Date Header Format" and "Comments Timestamp Format" duplicate trimmed lists, non-referential dating formats, and adding the newly mentioned formats produces our comprehensive list:
6:10 PM, June 14, 2008 [time month day year]
—
6/14/08 [month day year with only numbers time]
6/14/08 6:10 PM
6/14/2008
6/14/2008 6:10 PM
6/14/2008 6:10:37 PM
6.14.2008
—
June 14, 2008 [month day year with words time]
June 14, 2008 6:10 PM
June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM
June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM PDT
—
Saturday, June 14, 2008 [day month day year with words time]
Saturday, June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM
Saturday, June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM PDT
—
14/6/08 [day month year with only numbers time]
14/6/08 18:10
14/6/08 6:10 PM
14.06.08
—
Sat Jun 14, 06:10:37 PM [day month day with abbreviated words time]
Sat Jun 14, 06:10:37 PM PDT
Sat Jun 14, 06:10:37 PM 2008
—
14 June 2008 [(day) day month year with words]
14 June, 2008
14 June, 2008 18:10
Saturday, 14 June, 2008
—
20080614 [year month day (day) time]
2008/06/14
2008-06-14
2008-06-14 18:10
2008-06-14 Saturday 18:10
2008-06-14 18:10:37
2008-06-14 Saturday 18:10:37